17 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1885–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1993The relevancy of this evidence is explained in State v. King, 588 S.W.2d 147 (Mo.App.1979) where the court said: [A] well recognized exception makes evidence of other crimes admissible when that evidence “tend(s) to establish ... a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of separate similar offenses so interrelated to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other....” [citation omitted] Equally well recognized, in our state, is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the cri 1987According to State v. King, 588 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1979), equally well recognized in our state is the parallel exception to the “common scheme or plan exception.” That parallel exception permits proof of another crime if the other crime is so linked in point of time and circumstance with the crime charged that *273 one cannot fully be shown without proving the other. 4 The court held (at 150) that [u]nder this latter exception, the state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and is not required to sift and separate the evidence and exclude the testimon | 5 | 6 |
State v. Weatherspoongreen2 sentences2005State v. Weatherspoon, 728 S.W.2d 267, 272-73 (Mo.App.1987). “[T]he state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and it is not required to sift and separate the evidence and exclude the testimony tending to prove the crime for which [a] defendant is not on trial.” State v. King, 588 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1979). 1996State v. Weatherspoon, 728 S.W.2d 267, 272-73 (Mo.App.1987). “[T]he state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and it is not required to sift and separate the evidence and exclude the testimony tending to prove the crime for which [a] defendant is not on trial.” State v. King, 588 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1992Equally well recognized, in our state, is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, e.g., State v. Shumate, 478 S.W.2d 328, 330-331 (Mo.1972), State v. Taylor, 320 Mo. 417 , 8 S.W.2d 29, 35 (1928). 1992Equally well recognized, in our state, is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, e.g., State v. Shumate, 478 S.W.2d 328, 330-331 (Mo.1972), State v. Taylor, 320 Mo. 417 , 8 S.W.2d 29, 35 (1928). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shumategreen2 sentences1992Equally well recognized, in our state, is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, e.g., State v. Shumate, 478 S.W.2d 328, 330-331 (Mo.1972), State v. Taylor, 320 Mo. 417 , 8 S.W.2d 29, 35 (1928). 1979Equally well recognized, in our state, is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, e. g., State v. Shumate, 478 S.W.2d 328, 330-331 (Mo.1972), State v. Taylor, 320 Mo. 417 , 8 S.W.2d 29, 35 (1928). 1 Under this latter exception, the state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and it is not required to sift and separate the evidence and exclude the testimony tending to prove the crime | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sinovichgreen2 sentences1987State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909 , 46 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1931); see State v. Torrence, 519 S.W.2d 360 (Mo.App. 1975). 1987State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909 , 46 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1931); see State v. Torrence, 519 S.W.2d 360 (Mo.App. 1975). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Torrencegreen2 sentences1987State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909 , 46 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1931); see State v. Torrence, 519 S.W.2d 360 (Mo.App. 1975). 1979State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909 , 46 S.W.2d 877, 880 (1931); see State v. Torrence, 519 S.W.2d 360 (Mo.App.1975). | 2 | 2 |
Barnes v. Tools & MacHinery Builders, Inc.green1 sentence1988Id. at 520-521. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morrow
green
2 sentences2020Such evidence can also be admitted “to present the jury a complete and coherent picture of the charged crimes.” Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 107 ; Kitson, 817 S.W.2d at 597 n.1 (setting forth the parallel exception “which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with a crime charged that one cannot fully be shown without proving the other.” Under this exception, “the state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and is not required to sift and separate evidence and exclude the testimony tending to pr 2007The parallel exception permits evidence of separate crimes in order “to present a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired.” Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 107 . | 2 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Kitson
green
1 sentence2020Such evidence can also be admitted “to present the jury a complete and coherent picture of the charged crimes.” Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 107 ; Kitson, 817 S.W.2d at 597 n.1 (setting forth the parallel exception “which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with a crime charged that one cannot fully be shown without proving the other.” Under this exception, “the state is permitted to paint a complete and coherent picture of the crime charged and is not required to sift and separate evidence and exclude the testimony tending to pr | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , 552 U.S. 312 , 330, 128 S.Ct. 999 , 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008). 2017Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , 552 U.S. 312 , 330, 128 S.Ct. 999 , 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brooks
green
1 sentence1992Furthermore, although our state follows the general rule prohibiting the admission of evidence of other uncharged crimes, “[ejqually well recognized ... is the parallel exception which permits proof of another crime, if the other crime is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with a crime charged that one cannot fully be shown without proving the other.” State v. Brooks, 810 S.W.2d 627 , 630 n. 1 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Alsbach v. Bader
green
1 sentence1986Alsbach, supra, at 828-830 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1986Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 1986Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Foster
green
1 sentence1974Under comparable circumstances involving a parallel instruction, a like attack was unsuccessfully leveled against the state’s verdict directing instruction in State v. Foster, supra. In Foster , this court held that the words “offer” and “violence” were words in common usage and, therefore, required no definition, and, in any event, the trial court had no duty to define them absent the tender of an appropriate instruction by defendant. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Chipman v. Hibberd
green
1 sentence1885As well might you remove the columns which supported the roof or some part of the superstructure of a splendid mansion, and limit the owner in damages to the value of these columns as timber or cord wood, as to adopt the parallel rule in this case.” The same rule is stated in Foote v. Merrill, 54 N. H. 490 ; Chipman v. Hibbard, 6 Cal. 162 ; Ensley v. Nashville, 2 Baxter 144; Wallace v. Goodall, 18 N. H. 439-56. | 1 | 1885–1885 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.